Orgnizations v. Organisms

August 24, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Recently on my You-Tube submission about my PhD process I made the following comment: “We
are allowed to say that an organization was designed by creative human minds,
but not so for the cell. Evolution says it occurred as an accumulation of
errors, even though it is much more complex and functional than any Fortune 500
company.”

The person with whom I was
corresponding replied: “Comparing living organisms to things that people design
and build, as creatinists [SIC] often do [SIC] makes for an extremely poor
analogy and weak argument from the creationist side. Reproduction is very unique
to life; objects that we produce do not reproduce themeselves [SIC], and if they
could they would evolve as computer models have demonstrated. Reproduction, the
success of which is heavily reliant on environmental conditions, is key to
evolution.”

I did not address this argument on You-Tube, because it was off the subject.
The subject was that the professors on
my dissertation committee would not hear me out on less-than-full endorsement of
Darwinian evolution, regardless of my arguments.

Even so, the question raised deserves discussion somewhere, so I’ll do it here:

There are three phenomenon that easily can be compared between the theory of evolution of organizations (called
population ecology in the organization science literature) and the theory of
evolution of organisms (particularly, Darwinian evolution). These are a) the
generation of new types, b) the survival or demise of types, and c) the
proliferation of surviving types. My objector has rolled them together. Some
confusion is avoided by recognizing them as distinct. I will discuss them one at
a time in reverse order:

c) Organisms are indeed unique in
how they reproduce—A set of DNA is read and duplicated automatically upon
certain preconditions being met. But organizations are also reproduced. Not only
do the original builders of an organization tend to build more organizations
based on their initial success, but also other people see what works and copy
it. This is so “natural” that copyright and other infringement laws must be made
to protect some processes organizations do. For our purposes we can set aside
reproduction as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with organizations.

b) Organisms must survive in a
less-than benevolent environment. They must access specific materials (be they
oxygen, carbon-dioxide, water, food, whatever) from the environment, and what
they give off must be received by the environment without fouling it; or the
organism will perish. Organizations, by comparison, must receive raw materials
and financial profits, by producing products and services for which the market
is willing to pay; or the organization will perish. This is key to population
ecology theory, which argues that the “survival of the fittest” accounts for the
populations of organizations that we find at any given time and place. For our
purposes we can set aside survival as a “uniqueness” in comparing organisms with
organizations.

a) Organisms change to some extent
from generation to generation. I do not look exactly like my parents, but this
can be entirely accounted for in the mix of DNA between my two parents. Setting
this aside, mutations occur, which increase the options in the survival mix; and
may introduce permanent change in the organism type, if it helps the organism
“win” in the fight for survival. (An example would be
cycle-cell, which enhances survivability in the presence of malaria.) It may
also be the case that mutations increase variations that may not affect survival
(hair, eye, and skin color). Organizations likewise differ from generation to
generation of organization, because founders make mistakes in copying former
organizations. But they also differ from those that came before because the
creators intentionally make changes, thinking through and projecting what might
work better in the changing economic environments.

On this point organization change
has a leg-up on organism mutation, which has no such creative option. Darwinian
theory denies any opportunity for forethought or “purpose” in the generation of
change. There can be no goal in sight, not even survival. Organizations can not
only change from generation to generation, but organization change can take
place without an existing organization. (I teach courses on how this is done.)
Even though major reengineering and restructuring of organizations is difficult
and complex, it is a far cry more possible than an organism deciding to have
more legs or less gills. (No, tadpoles don’t count. They were programmed from
conception to make that change, and it is repeated every generation without
permanent change.)

In my dissertation committee I
never said that evolution was not a useful or defendable position; I simply said
that the theory of evolution works better when applied to organizations than to
organisms. Regardless of what one chooses to believe about evolution of
organisms, it should be clear that it is easier to support survival of the
fittest as a mechanism for continuous change among organizations than it is
among organisms. If this is denied, I don’t see how it can be done on the basis
of logic. And if not logic, then what?

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »